The conferences organized by the International Institute of Informatics and Systemics
(IIIS) have, in their peer reviewing methodology, three-tier reviews: open (or non-blind),
double-blind, and participative reviews. Final acceptance depends of the three kinds
of reviews but a paper should be recommended by non-blind reviewers AND blind reviewers
in order to be accepted for presentation at the conference and to be included in
the respective conference proceedings. A recommendation to accept made by non-blind
reviewers is a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one.
A submission, to be accepted, should also have a majority of its double-blind reviewers
recommending its acceptance. This double necessary conditions generate a more reliable
and rigorous reviewing than a those reviewing methods based on just one
of the indicated methods, or just on the traditional double-blind reviewing.

Double-blind reviewing is done by a random selection of a 3-5 reviewers from the
about 20.000 IIIS reviewers who classified their research or expertise field in
the same theme, area, or sub-area where the author classified his/her submission.
The random selection (made by a computer program) has been conceived in order to
avoid any conscious, or un-conscious, bias that might be done by a human being selection
of the respective reviewers.

IIIS' non-blind reviewing is based on the essence of what Kaplan (2005, "How to
Fix Peer Review", The Scientist, Volume 19, Issue 1, Page 10, Jun. 6) proposed
in order to fix peer reviewing problems. Kaplan affirms that "Peer review subsumes
two functions. First, peer reviewers attempt to improve manuscripts by offering
constructive criticisms about concrete elements ... The second function of peer review
is to render a decision about the ... significance of the findings so that the manuscript
can be prioritized for publication. I propose reforming peer review so that the
two functions are independent." With regards to the first function of peer reviewing
Kaplan proposes that "Review of a manuscript would be solicited from colleagues by
the authors. The first task of these reviewers would be to identify revisions
that could be made to improve the manuscript. Second, the reviewers would be responsible
for writing an evaluation of the revised work. This assessment would be mostly concerned
with the significance of the findings, and the reviewers would sign it" (emphasis
added).

IIIS tries to achieve the first function via Kaplan's non-blind peer reviewing and
the second function by the traditional means of double-blind review. This is why
submission acceptance by the non-blind reviewers is a necessary condition but not
a sufficient one. The submission should also have favorable recommendations by the
majority of the double-blind reviewers in order to be accepted by IIIS for its presentation
and inclusion in the respective conference proceedings.

A third reviewing tier is the participative peer reviewing, which complements the
two tiers described above but it is not a necessary condition for accepting a submission.
An article submitted to a conference being organized by IIIS is immediately displayed
for review to those authors who submitted articles in the same theme, area, or sub-area.
Accordingly, each submitting author have access to all submission submitted to the
same area where he/she submitted his/her article and can comment and evaluate any
submitted article to the same area.

This is what is called in IIIS "Participative Peer-to-Peer Reviewing" or PPPR. This
kind of reviewing provides additional input to the selection process and assists
all participants in placing their presentations in context.. It is not a necessary
condition but it has a complementary function, especially in those cases where the
non-blind reviewers have a strong disagreement and no majority of recommendations
are for accepting or not accepting the respective article.

In some circumstances, component conferences may use a somewhat different approach
to selecting blind referees (such as requiring reviews by program committee members),
but the general process will remain the same. Invited sessions organizers may have
their own reviewing methodology.

As a consequence of the reviewing methodology, briefly described above, we IIIS
provides the following notes to authors and reviewers.

Note for Authors

IIIS conferences, together with their component conferences, workshops, and tracks,
are inherently a multidisciplinary event with an especial focus on interdisciplinary
research and communication. Given the known problems with peer reviewing, and the
use of reviewers across a broad scope of disciplines, the conferences use a combination
of open (non-blind) and closed (double-blind) reviewing. The open reviews are intended
to place the submitted work in the context of its own discipline(s) and specialization,
and in the context of the body of work developed by the author(s). We therefore
suggest that the open reviewers be individuals knowledgeable in the field, and acquainted
with that body of work. It is perfectly acceptable therefore (and even necessary
according to David Kaplan), to use research colleagues or friends.

Because the non-blind reviewing is an adequation of what David Kaplan proposed to fix “peer-review” (see above) then the submitting(s) author(s) should be aware about the following issues, while suggesting a non-anonymous reviewer:

To suggest a colleague after having asked him/her to be a non-anonymous reviewer of his/her article. A co-author of the submitted article should not be suggested as non-anonymous reviewer. Any other colleague is eligible, including members of the same research teams, advisers, academic or professional colleagues, colleagues in other organizations, etc.

To provide the data required for contacting the proposed reviewer; which include the data required for the verification and validation of the proposed non-anonymous reviewer so the Organizing committee is able to accept the proposed reviewer before asking her/him to support the reviewing process of the respective article.

Consequently, a verifiable email is anecessary condition for both 1) to provide the non-anonymous reviewer with the password required to access to the article to be reviewed and 2) to assure to the Organizing Committee that the password is sent to the proposed non-anonymous reviewer. This is why we stress that an institutional email is generally a preferred one. Non-institutional emails (e.g. gmail, hotmail, etc) should be verifiable via web. Otherwise, the Organizing committee would have no way to verify and validate the suggested reviewer and consequently cannot approve it and the respective reviewing process cannot be initiated.

Note for Non-Blind (Open) Reviewers

IIIS conferences, together with its component conferences, workshops, and tracks,
are inherently a multidisciplinary congress with an especial focus on interdisciplinary
research. Given the known problems with peer reviewing, and the use of reviewers
across a broad scope of disciplines, the conferences use a combination of open (non-blind)
and closed (double-blind) reviewing. The open reviews are intended to place the
submitted work in the context of its own discipline(s) and specialization, and in
the context of the body of work developed by the author(s). We also encourage open
reviewers to identify technical or editorial problems, or propose additional references,
modifications, extensions, or possibilities for future work. Please take this review
seriously-your input will be useful for both the conference and the author(s).